The objective of this case study is to analyse the effects of improving the efficiency of a 15kW induction motor in various countries with different energy mixes. The results show that an improvement of efficiency has higher environmental benefits in countries with an electricity generation based on fossil fuels rather than renewable energy sources or nuclear. Electricity mixes from EU25, France, Germany, Poland and Austria were used. The same efficiency increase (Eff2 to Eff1 class) in a motor leads to a saving of 31 tonnes of CO2 in Poland, but 3 tonnes in France. This contrasts with the reduction of primary energy consumption: 330 GJ in Poland and 415 GJ in France.

1. Eco-sheet
15 kW induction motor – impact of efficiency
increase varies according to electricity mixes
June 2006
By Sergio Ferreira, European Copper Institute
Email: saf@eurocopper.org
This eco-sheet has been produced by Leonardo ENERGY in the context of its project
'Efficiency and ecodesign'. It aims to demonstrate and quantify the environmental
benefits of high efficiency electrical equipment.
The objective of this case study is to analyse the effects of improving the efficiency of a
15kW induction motor in various countries with different energy mixes. The results show
that an improvement of efficiency has higher environmental implications in countries
with an electricity generation based on fossil fuels rather than renewable energy sources
or nuclear.
The case study was produced using the Eco-design Toolbox models, owned by the
European Copper Institute.
1 Product description and typical application
The following is an environmental product declaration for two types of 15 kW low-
voltage induction motors, operating a motor driven system. Typical applications are water
pumping, compressed air, or ventilation. The two designs that are analysed correspond to
the efficiency classes Eff1 and Eff2.
2 Scope of the LCA
The declared units for the LCA are the production phase, the utilization phase and the
recycling phase. All LCA data were taken from the GaBi4 database. The modelling and
the inventory data (specifically regarding data quality aspects) were performed in
accordance with ISO 14040 series as far as applicable.

2. 2.1 Manufacturing
The manufacturing phase covers the most significant materials, cf table 1:
Material Eff 2 motor Eff 1 motor
Aluminium 3.1 3.3
Copper 8.3 10.3
Electrical steel 72.4 104
Table 1 – Bill of materials for the motor types (in kg) [SAVE, 1999]
2.2 Utilization
For the utilization phase, the electricity grid mixes from the average EU25, France
(predominantly Nuclear), Germany (mixed nuclear, gas and coal) and Poland
(predominantly coal) were used. The grid mixes are expressed in table 2:
EU25 France Germany Poland Austria
Hard coal 21.14 4.57 23.13 56.63 11.40
Lignite 9.43 0 26.99 37.10 1.65
Nuclear 32.19 79.44 28.56 0 0
Oil 4.66 1.04 1.73 1.66 3.00
Natural gas 19.66 3.25 10.51 2.08 18.10
Hydro 11.01 11.59 4.76 2.44 64.32
Wind 1.91 0.10 4.32 0.09 1.53
Table 2 – electricity grid mixes for selected countries (% of energy source)

3. The losses were calculated as the environmental impact, using the following parameters:
Parameter Eff 2 Eff 1
Rating (kW) 15 15
η (%) 89.4 91.8
Lifetime (years) 20 20
Load (%) 50 50
Operating hours (per year) 6000 6000
Table 3 – use profile for the 2 motor types
The mechanical output of the motor at the axis is considered useful work, delivering input
to the driven system (compressor, fan, pump,…).
2.3 End of life
The end of life is defined by the amount of dismantled material for recycling (kg)/amount
of shred material for recycling (kg). The masses of recyclable materials are calculated as
environmental credits.
3 Results
3.1 Inventory
The table bellow compiles the results obtained from the LCA modelling of the 2 types of
motors using the electricity grid mixes of 4 different countries.

4. EU 25 France Germany Poland Austria
Parameters Unit
Eff 2 Eff 1 Eff 2 Eff 1 Eff 2 Eff 1 Eff 2 Eff 1 Eff 2 Eff 1
Primary energy
consumption (non-RES)
GJ 1267.8 937.7 1525.5 1127 1289.8 953.3 1259.7 931.1 433.4 322.7
Primary energy
consumption (RES)
GJ 76.7 57.3 67.9 50.7 60.1 44.9 16.5 12.7 366.7 270.9
Carbon dioxide kg 59041 43717 12395 9302 75210 55598 122160 90198 33993 25256
Nitrogen Oxides kg 105.9 78.4 23 17.2 134.2 99.2 243.3 179.6 55.6 41.3
Sulphur dioxide kg 246.7 182.3 41.6 30.9 429.3 316.8 694.9 512.5 98.6 73.1
Acidification potential kg SO2-eq 321.8 237.9 58.1 43.3 524.5 387.1 867.1 639.6 138 102.4
Eutrophication potential kg
Phosphate-eq
16.9 12.6 4.05 3.02 20.3 15 35.7 26.4 9.4 6.97
Global warming pot.
(100 yrs)
kg CO2-eq 63519 47066 13371 10327 79437 58753 129960 95993 36794 27369
Ozone layer depletion
pot.
kg R11-eq 0.015 0.011 0.037 0.027 0.014 0.009 0.00024 0.00019 0.00009 0.00009
Photochemical Ozone
creation pot.
kg Ethene-eq 19.4 14.4 3.8 2.9 29.1 21.5 48 35.5 9.14 6.83
Table 4 – Inventory results (including environmental impact categories CML 2001) per life cycle for the 2 motor types, as produced
by the Eco-design Toolbox

5. The Toolbox subdivides impact per life cycle phase (manufacturing, utilization and end
of life). In this case, over 90% of the
life cycle environmental impact is in
the utilization phase. As a result, the
use phase, and more specifically
electricity use, dominates the life-cycle
impact (see figure 1). (recycling of
materials at the end of life is accounted
as a credit). Hence the importance of
an accurate estimate of lifetime, load
and efficiency.
Figure 2 –Primary energy consumption (GJ) for the life cycle of the two types of motors
The environmental impact is also highly dependent on the electricity generation mix.
Figure 2 shows the electricity consumption over the motor life time for a regular motor
(Eff 2) compared to a highly efficient motor (Eff 1). Note the influence of the power plant
efficiency; Austria (60% hydro power) using less primary energy than France (70%
nuclear). Germany and Poland (based on coal and gas) show similar figures. Figure 3
shows that CO2 emissions reduce with reduced electricity consumption (Eff1 compared to
Eff2). However, the order of magnitude of CO2 emissions substantially differs from
country to country. This is due to the different sources of primary energy used to generate
electricity.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
EU25 France Germany Poland Austria
Primary energy consumption
Eff 2
Eff 1
937.7
7.1
930.8
-0.19
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Life cycle Manufacturing Use phase End of Life
Life cycle energy use

6. France (Nuclear power) and Austria (Hydro power) have lower CO2 emissions. Power
generation using coal has higher CO2 emissions, being the cases for Germany (23% coal
and 27% lignite) and Poland (56% coal and 37% lignite)
Figure 3 – CO2 emissions (kg) for the life cycle of the two types of motors
Using the method ‘1’ described in [PE Europe, 2005], one can calculate the
environmental performance of using additional copper (Cu) to increase motor efficiency.
The following table indicates the CO2 savings (net and per kg of copper), taking into
account that increasing the efficiency of a 15kW motor from Eff 2 to Eff 1 implies
additional 2 kg of copper.
EU25 France Germany Poland Austria
Reduced CO2 emissions 15324 3093 19612 31962 8737
Reduced CO2 emissions per kg Cu 7662 1546.5 9806 15981 4368.5
Table 5 – Reduced CO2 emissions in kg per motor by increasing the efficiency
Each additional kg of copper used will save a different amount of CO2 emissions
according to the country and its electricity generation mix. Given that one kg of copper is
responsible for 3kg of CO2e emissions in production phase (for electrical applications),
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
EU25 France Germany Poland Austria
CO2 emissions
Eff 2
Eff 1

7. [Copper, 2006], the environmental payback is substantial. In Poland, one kg of copper
could save more than 15 tonnes of CO2e emissions when used to improve the efficiency
of a motor. These environmental benefits are yet consolidated because at the end of life
the kg of copper can be 100% recycled for the next application maintaining its properties.

8. 4 References
[Copper, 2006] ECI, information site providing up to date life cycle data on its key
products, www.copper-life-cycle.org
[GABI] The respective tools and models have been provided by PE Europe, Hauptstrasse
111-113, D-70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen (Stuttgart), Germany, www.gabi-
software.com
[PE Europe, 2005] PE Europe, Recommendation Paper, Options for Calculating the Long
term sustainability of copper use, November 2005, available from www.leonardo-
energy.org
[PSR, 2000] EPD, Product specific requirements for rotating electrical machines, May
2000, available form www.envirodec.com
[Save, 1999] European Commission – DG TREN, Study on technical – economic and
cost – benefit analysis of the energy efficiency improvements in industrial three phase
induction motor, 1999
[Toolbox, 2005] The original information of this environmental declaration sheet is taken
from the results of the GaBi 4 i-Report referring to the ecodesign toolbox 2005 (for
information, contact Sergio Ferreira, email saf@eurocopper.org )